The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of possession of land, validity of power of attorney and Will, and the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court in granting injunction.

Alok Aradhe, J.

The petition is admitted to hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

1. In this petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 31.07.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu by which ad interim order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed a suit seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring 42 kanals 15 marlas forming part of Khasra No. 138 (17 kanals 12 marlas) Khasra No. 280 (19 kanals 06 marlas), Khasra No. 281 (03 kanals 11 marlas) and Khasra No. 282 (2 kanals 6 marlas) situate at village Birpur, Tehsil Samba, District Jammu. The claim of the petitioner is based on the ground that his father was in exclusive possession of land as owner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-1 had committed certain omissions and commissions which were unbecoming of a faithful son. Therefore, father of the petitioner executed a deed dated 16.03.2006 which was registered on 17.03.2006 by the Sub-Registrar, Jammu by which the respondent-1 was disowned and declared, not entitled to any property belonging to the father of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner had also executed a Will, which was registered on 17.03.2006 by which the land admeasuring 42 kanals 15 marlas was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. It was further stated that the father of the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in his favour on 17.03.2006 to look after and manage the affairs of the land in question. The father of the petitioner expired on 09.04.2006. However, the respondents started interfering with the possession of the land in possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the suit seeking the relief as stated supra.

3. The respondents filed the writ statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the power of attorney lapsed the death of the father of the petitioner, namely, Fathe Ali Chowdhary, on 09.04.2006. It was further submitted that the petitioner was never put in possession of the suit land and no documentary evidence was placed on record to show that he was in possession of the suit land.

4. The Trial Court by an order dated 08.12.2006 allowed the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner. The Trial Court by placing reliance on the power of attorney as well as Will, inter alia, held that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question. It was further held that the plaintiffs father was in possession of the land and handed over the possession of the same to the petitioner. The Trial Court further held that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and in case the petitioner is dispossessed, he will suffer an irreparable loss. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents in an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Jammu, the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 31.07.2007 set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 08.12.2006. The Lower Appellate Court inter alia held that the plaintiff has no prima facie case to go to the Trial Court, on the ground that he came in exclusive possession of the suit land in the life time of his father by virtue of Will or the power of attorney executed by the father of the petitioner on 17.03.2006. It was further held that balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the order passed by the Trial Court was reversed. In the aforesaid factual background, this petitioner has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for